The judgment establishes the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the principles governing the burden of proof in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

1. The present appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20-1-2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, in ST No. 19/2019 whereby the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The trial Court also imposed default sentence in case of failure to pay the fine.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 2-12-2018 Kripal Yadav (PW-4), son of the appellant and Hemin Bai (since deceased), made a report that on 2-12-2018 stating, inter alia, that when he went to meet his parents, who were residing at Mutrichapar, village Khamharipara, his father (appellant) met him and stated that on the previous night of 1-12-2018 in between 9.00 to 11.00 pm on a trivial dispute in respect of money he has assaulted his mother (deceased) and by such injury she has succumbed to death and he has covered the dead body by a blanket. Thereafter, the dehati merg (Ex.P/9) and Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P/10) was recorded. The dead body was sent to postmortem. Dr. S. Patel (PW-10), who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased, submitted the report vide Ex.P/19 and opined that the nature of death is homicidal. During the course of investigation, the clothes of the deceased as also wooden logs, by which the assault was made, were recovered at the instance of the accused. Apart from that, the shirt and full pant of the appellant were also recovered, which were having bloodstains.

3. After due investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions from where the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, received the case on transfer for trial.

4. During trial the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 32 documents. Apart from that FSL report as Art.01 and Art.02. The accused did not adduce any evidence.

5. Upon appreciation of evidence, the trial Court came to a finding that the appellant has committed the offence and convicted & sentenced him as mentioned supra. Thus, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is no direct evidence available in this case and only on the basis of circumstantial evidence the appellant has been inculpated. He would further submit that the dead body was found in the field and the appellant was residing at a different place, therefore, there is no nexus to connect the appellant with the crime. Learned counsel would also submit that the wooden logs, which were alleged to be recovered, were from the courtyard of the house whereas the dead body was found in the field, therefore, the author of it cannot be attributed to the appellant. He would submit that in the FSL report the blood group has also not been established, which would lead to show that only on presumption the appellant has been inculpated. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would vehemently oppose the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. He would further submit that the appellant and the deceased were inmates of the house. They were living separately, which is stated by Ku. Satya Yadav (PW-5). Apart from that extra judicial confession was made by the appellant before PW-1 Sharwan Kumar Thakur. He would submit that the shirt and full pant of the appellant, which were recovered at his instance on the very next day of the incident, were containing human blood and no plausible explanation has been offered by the appellant about presence of such bloodstains, therefore, if the